Monday, June 12, 2006

On DELL and AMD again

INQ reported that DELL will start selling more AMD machines. I have analysed the situation previously in great detail at here, here, here and here. The logical conclusion now is that DELL will have to go AMD across the board (desktop, mobile and server) on about July 23, 2006.

Basically, Intel forced DELL to go AMD. DELL must go AMD or it will BK.

Intel's price slashing has two devestating effects on DELL

1) DELL's pricing advantage is reduced or eliminated as everyone now gets Intel CPUs dirt cheap. This vanishing pricing advantage means lower units and unit share for DELL.

2) Of course, PC unit price will also drop.

The above two factors coupled with AMD's increasing market share and slowing down of the PC market growth will lead to DELL's revenue decline. Continuing revenue decline will lead to the collapse of DELL, as its stock is valued at 17x price/book.

The only way for DELL to maintain revenue growth is thus by entering AMD market in full force. That's a 50 million unit/year market. DELL can expect to grab 15% of it to compensate the loss of revenue in the Intel space.

52 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

By your logic, AMD is on the verge of collapse, because it has a 31x price/book ratio.

9:59 AM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AMD

AMD price/book is 2.64

10:14 AM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only way for DELL to maintain revenue growth is thus by entering AMD market in full force. That's a 50 million unit/year market. DELL can expect to grab 15% of it to compensate the loss of revenue in the Intel space."

This is an exceedingly stupid comment from someone who supposedly has a PhD. There is no such thing as the "AMD market". There is the microprocessor market and submarkets of Desktop, Mobile, handheld, Server CPUs. Intel and AMD compete in the exact same markets although Intel competes in quite a few that AMD is not a player in. So it doesn't make sense by this logic for Dell to enter the AMD market because, well there is no AMD market. Nice to see INTC up 2% today and AMD down almost 4%.

12:22 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

There is no such thing as the "AMD market".

That's because you can't think out of the box. Market is just a way to divide customers. You can always sub section the market in different ways from different angles. There is a distinctive AMD ecosystem and AMD market, it's the AMD64 market. Intel's EM64T is a AMD64 clone. The AMD64 market is growing and EM64T(clone) market is shrinking. More and more buyers are getting into the AMD64 market: they simply won't buy Intel.

The reality for DELL is that it's only selling in the Intel market, thus it's missing the sales in the AMD64 market. A good example is Rackspace. 66% of Rackspace's customers demand AMD64, these 66% customers belong in the AMD64 market. DELL doesn't offer AMD64. So Rackspace went to HP.

Get it?

12:41 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"There is no such thing as the "AMD market". There is the microprocessor market and submarkets of Desktop, Mobile, handheld, Server CPUs."

There IS the AMD market if you're looking from system builder's (which is Dell) perspective. It uses different motherboards, different drivers, and different form factor requirement (versus Pentium-D heater).

Many system builders (HP, etc) have already streamlined the process of buildling AMD boxes, but Dell hasn't. In general, the more boxes you make, the less per-box investment you have to pay for.

12:58 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, how many people here actually use a "Dell" system as their computer?

I'm not talking about your work computer, you know the one you spend all day reading this blog on, but for your own personal use (gaming, multimedia, etc...).

I believe its pretty small percentage.

Know to the question on hand.

How much money did "Dell" make last year selling Intel?

55 Billion +/-, I dont know how much of that is printers, monitors, etc... but they are definetly selling computers.

What kind of incentive does AMD have to offer "Dell"?

1:05 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I build white box Amds I have shipped 1000's not one Intel, They give solid performance and stay working. end of story

1:09 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I'm not talking about your work computer, you know the one you spend all day reading this blog on, but for your own personal use (gaming, multimedia, etc...).


DELL's share of US consumer market is probably about 10%.

1:12 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, Phoney wrote: "That's because you can't think out of the box. Market is just a way to divide customers. You can always sub section the market in different ways from different angles. There is a distinctive AMD ecosystem and AMD market, it's the AMD64 market. Intel's EM64T is a AMD64 clone. The AMD64 market is growing and EM64T(clone) market is shrinking. More and more buyers are getting into the AMD64 market: they simply won't buy Intel."

No, again there is no AMD market. Rackspace went to AMD because for a while AMD had a better product. There was a market for a cool/low power server chip. This is not an AMD market. AMD just found a void in an existing market and filled it. Now that Intel has filled that void as well I would not be surprised to see Rackspace make more sales based on Intel chips. It has nothing to do with an "AMD market" or "Intel market". Intel's brand still has some value over AMD but has been admittedly lost by lackluster CPUs over the last couple years. However, now that Intel has seen the light, I expect that AMD will need to find some other niche to fill once Intel squeezes it out of the niches it has already found. AMD cannot directly compete on volume and cost. Not by paying someone else to produce their chips for them. Chartered needs to show a profit as well. So AMD margins are always going to be lower than Intel's as long as they compete in the same markets. AMDs only hope is to build more fab capacity than Intel (good luck on that one) and to sell for cheaper to continue to gain marketshare. Selling cheaper is going to be hard since they need to pay chartered and aren't sitting on a whole lot of cash. I expect AMD to be back to about 20% market share in 18 months.

1:24 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

No, again there is no AMD market. Rackspace went to AMD because for a while AMD had a better product. There was a market for a cool/low power server chip. This is not an AMD market.

Dude, you need to use your brain. I already said enough. Tell us, what is a "market"? Then start from there.

1:29 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, 10%.

But what about this question...

What kind of incentive does AMD have to offer "Dell"?

1:41 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

"No, again there is no AMD market. Rackspace went to AMD because for a while AMD had a better product."

I have to say you are a moroff.

There is a indeed markets for computers, this include Mobile, Server and Desktop. Sub-divisions of those 3 include AMD Server, AMD Desktop, AMD Mobile, as well as Intel for all 3. Dell sells Intel Server, Intel Desktop, and Intel Mobile, thus only the INTEL Market. HP sells everything, thus AMD and INTEL Market.

Intel's market is dominated by its name, period. If you had a choice of Pepsi or Sonergi, what would you choose? People know Intel because places like QVC and Shop@Home constantly sell Intel, one time I saw them selling an AMD chip and it was a Sempron laptop, that's it. Just last night, I watched the moron on Shop@Home say "You have an Intel processor....some of the biggest names in the industry.....the best" and he couldn't be further from wrong.

They were selling a PD 805 w/ 1GB RAM and 300GB HDD for $1600 w/ a 17" LCD....that's the best? Please...

AMD no doubt has to pay Charter and everybody else who wants to churn for them, but you think they're paying them gobs of cash? AMD I guarantee is providing the silicon, all Charter has to do is provide the equipment, and since they're already working on the XBOX 360, throwin' in some AMD chips isn't exactly hard. AMD knows it has to increase FAB capacity, and guess what...IT IS! FAB36, FAB38, Charter...that's 3 more FAB's and 2 of them atleast have APM, and APM = 100% yields (according to AMD).

Rackspace can't go Intel, because it's impossible to move to a product THAT DOESN'T EXIST (woodcrest!!!) and likewise for other companies and sellers.

1:42 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

drool..........

amd x2 system with SLI-like performance under 300Watt and don't cost you over $1200 by end of dec 2006

drool..........

amd am2 3800 x2 energy efficient small form factor rev f core after price cut (est $195, 35w)

asus am2 550 based standard mb (est $100, 40w)

2 x 512mb ddr2 800 ram ($100, 20w)

1 x nvidia dx10 compatible videocard ($450, 120w, for a midrange one, should still perform better than today's 7950gx2 and use less than 120 watt)

1 x 120gb hybrid hd sata (10w, $150 can we say vista)

1 x antec 300w psu with case ($100)

est total $1095

typical power consumption est to be 230w and should not exceed 300w max.

for a machine that use power of 4 60w lightbulb, i will leave it on all day.

sunhing

1:51 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I apologize there is an AMD market... it is a very small market. The "AMD market" is defined as people who will buy AMD products no matter what crap they put out. Or it could be people who don't want to buy Intel because they hate Intel. HOwever, for the other 99.9% of people who don't think hysterically like this the markets remain as I said. Namely, a mobile market, a server market and a desktop market and with help from Intel it is creating a living room PC market with no help from AMD. Traditionally these were people who would settle for a little slower and a little cheaper. SOmehow, AMD saw a market opportunity and a gap in Intel's server line that allowed them to fill the market. That market is server customers who want highest performance per watt. AMD had that for a while. But they one bought AMD because AMD sold a higher performance per watt than Intel for some time. They didn't buy AMD because they were in an "AMD market" they bought AMD because they were in the server market, they wanted higher performance and they wanted to lowered electric bills. That pretty much summed up how AMD gained market share. notice AMD gained market share of the SERVER MARKET. This is not the same as AMD MARKET. I think you are the one who needs to start using your brain. It seems like you actually have started to believe some of the crap that drips from your weblog. That is just sad.
Speaking of markets, Intel has done more to create markets and ecosystems than AMD ever has and ever will... Keep in mind, AMD and it's 10,000 employees owe Intel for creating the x86 PC market in the first place. Just remember who's your daddy! I wonder where AMD would be if not for copying the x86 instruction set in the first place?

2:03 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just don't understand why those Intel fanboy try so hard to look smart. The header they try, the worse they look.

As long as there are poeple buying AMD CPU, there is AMD market. That is the definition.

If you don't understand why people buying AMD CPU, that means you don't understand (no more, and no less). If you think others are stupid, think again!

Want to make you points, back up with facts. Making lots of "I think, I expect, I predict" does not get you any where. Empty bottle makes the loudest noise.

Profit margin ?
AMD 58%
Intel 55%

The latest 2 analyst's reports :
1. Dump Intel(dead money), and run
2. Overweight AMD even the the target price drop to $45.

You still don't understand? never mind :-(

2:06 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Let me summarize. There is a PC market. PC market has 3 major sub markets divided by OSes: MacOS, Linux and Windows. The market can also be divided from another axis by instruction sets. Windows market is primarily AMD64. Within AMD64, there is true AMD64 and AMD64 clone market called EM64T......AMD64 market can yet again be divided from another axis by usage model, desktop, mobile...... Get it?

Market is just a way to categorize buyers of similar products.

3:47 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nice to see INTC up 2% today and AMD down almost 4%."

Like Sharikou said, try using that brain of yours. That's one day of trading. Look at a longer time frame.
INTC is trading around $17 which is a multi-year low dating back to early 2003.
During this same period, AMD has gone up 4x's even with recent declines. Keep cheering intel fanboi.

3:59 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

"Keep in mind, AMD and it's 10,000 employees owe Intel for creating the x86 PC market in the first place. Just remember who's your daddy! I wonder where AMD would be if not for copying the x86 instruction set in the first place?"

Wow.....if it weren't for IBM, Intel would be making chips for television sets.

Saying there is an Intel and AMD market is metaphorical in nature, just like saying there is a Pepsi and Coke market. People who buy Pepsi at Wal-Mart don't do it because they hate Coke (some do) but because 1) It may be cheaper or 2) The sh*t tastes better!

You say AMD is a nothing company who makes crap....than how come since the AM386 back in 1991, AMD has CONSTISTENTLY beaten Intel on every product....ever? You say AMD found a way into the market cuz they filled a gap by having better "performance per watt".....what? You're contradicting yourself....you are the biggest idiot I have ever dealt with.

Here's some facts Intel Fanboy:

Fact: AMD makes better server chips

Fact: AMD makes better desktop chips

Fact: AMD makes cheaper PPW mobile chips

Fact: AMD is more efficient and reliable

Fact: AMD has brought the industry closer to 64-bit computing

Fact: AMD revolutionized server computing w/ DCA

What has Intel done?

Fact: Intel screwed over AMD in 1990 w/ contract on IBM

Fact: Intel uses its name to gain profits

Fact: Intel uses shoddy deals and backstabbing to keep AMD down

Fact: Intel only cares about the dollar

Need more? These are true statements and not fanboy talk, and you are a complete moron man.

4:21 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nice to see INTC up 2% a day and AMD down almost 4%."

Intel has been buying back its stocks lately to support its stock price. Why? have a guess.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32365

Good move? wait until Intel checks its cash book in 3Q06.

4:40 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous DS said...

It looks like AMD stock is going down like crazy, but Intel actually seems to be doing well. What do you guys reckon this is due to???

Does this mean people think Intel will win the price war that (Intel) started just now?

I hope Intel doesn't screw up the PC market like it screwed up the NOR flash market. For those who don't know, Intel wanted to gain market share from AMD in NOR flash, so they started a price war for flash just like they're doing now for PCs. Hardly anyone has made a profit in NOR flash for the last 3-4 years now thanks to Intel.

5:22 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the main blog post:

"The only way for DELL to maintain revenue growth is thus by entering AMD market in full force."

I thought I would point out that The Inquirer where you got this Dell increasing AMD models feels that the effect will be different.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32375

Despite the price cuts, The Inquirer feels that Dell is still paying a lot less than what the average customer and the average company would pay.

From the article:

"Except that it actually may not be cutting average prices at all. Remember, this is about flat pricing, and what you and I pay is probably a lot more than what Dell pays. One look at a price sheet versus a Dell circular shows that you can't make a box that cheaply, or inexpensively, if you wanted to. Anyone want to bet that Dell paid less than half of what you can get that same CPU for?"

They conclude:

"So, with the introduction of the flat pricing model it actually raised the numbers on the largest of their customers while lowering it for less than half the buyers. When the sneaky maths is summed up, it's probable Intel will end up making more money than it did before the price cuts"

Essentially, this new pricing strategy can only benefit consumers. Dell does not take a profit hit, nor is it being made anti-competitive. At the same time, Intel is not losing money.

Given the above, I think you'd have to agree that Dell's shift to additional AMD products seems ackwardly timed. They've held onto Intel this long, and they are only weeks away from being justified. Even you noted in "Conroe getting really close to be busted" yesterday that "Except a few simplistic tests, the E6800's lead over FX62 is around 10% in majority of the tests." Dell really has no reason (except in the 4-socket+ market) to go to all that effort to introduce AMD products when Intel's upcoming offerings are just fine.

6:20 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Don't take INQ's opinion as bible. I accurately pinned DELL's time of going AMD at 2Q06 back in 2005. And I actually nailed the week of that transition. DELL going AMD is a MUST for its survival. It's about revenue and profits, I think I have explained clear enough. As for pricing advantage, I used the words "reduced or eliminated". I explained elsewhere. Getting extra 20% off a $300 part is a $60 advantage, 20% off a $100 part is only $20.

6:35 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mad Mod Mike says...

"There is a indeed markets for computers"

Wow! There's a market for computers! Stop the presses. Did you proofread this? Of f*****g course there's a market for computers. That's what I already said. What I was arguing was that Dell isn't going to enter the quote-unqote "AMD market" since there is no such market except for selling to people who won't buy anything but AMD which is tiny. As you said there is a computer market which is all Dell cares about. Dell has chosen to use solely Intel chips to play in that market because of preferred pricing for a long long time. There isn't a separate market for AMD desktop and Intel desktop. There is just a desktop pc market. Intel and AMD fight over share of that market (Intel's winning by the way). Considering the market in terms of who sells into it is completely back-asswards.

Another gem from Mike: "Intel's market is dominated by its name, period." Yeah, Intel owns 75% of the microsprocessor market because of its name and nothing else. It's not because Intel has been a reliable supplier of chips for decades. It's not because Intel invented the fucking microchip in the first place. It's not because it invented the most popular instruction set on the face of the earth. I could go on and on but you get the point. Intel is the market leader because of lots of hard work, competitiveness and occassionally sticking it to their underdog AMD. However to say Intel is where it is because of name is pure blind devotion to AMD. I like Intel chips. I am partial to them, but at least I can say when AMD has a better product. However, a better product isn't all it takes. You have to have better pricing, better marketing, better roadmaps in this business. If you whine and complain that you're not successful maybe it is other parts of your business that should be examined. AMDs problem has always been that it can design a nice chip but it could never make enough, fast enough and stay on the treadmill with Intel. Tough nuts. That's business. And now with the price war, which Intel is forced to do, it will likely hurt AMD more than Intel. Both AMD and Intel know that. Even with a LOUSY quarter in Q1'06, Intel showed profit of $1.35 Billion. By contrast AMD had a fantastic quarter in Q1 but only $185 million profit. Who would you rather be?

More wisdom from Mike: "AMD I guarantee is providing the silicon, all Charter has to do is provide the equipment, and since they're already working on the XBOX 360, throwin' in some AMD chips isn't exactly hard."

It is not that easy to just switch over to produce a different chip. So it's not just like "throwin' in some AMD chips" as you say. Regardless of how much their paying Chartered gobs of cash or not, it impacts their profit margin. This will show up in future quarters. It will be interesting to see what happens when AMD ramps up their new fabs and sees that their market share didn't increase as much as planned. It is a big gamble. Admirable to take the gamble but I'm afraid it won't pay off for them.

Sorry. You're in over your head here Mike. Go back to adding more RAM to your PC or fiddling with DDR timings or playing games. This stuff is too complex for you.

6:56 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

"I could go on and on but you get the point."

I didn't read your whole post, as after 10 words, I knew the point (you're a f*cking moron).

You have no idea how anything works in the industry or how anybody got there, you are an ignorant little child who needs to be spanked by daddy. I won't waste my time posting a very long thread about how much of a moron you are and the truth about Intel and AMD because unless it is "Intel pwns AMD", your arrogant dumbass head won't listen to it anyways.

7:18 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"I apologize there is an AMD market... it is a very small market."

I'm really fed up with your stupid claims one after another. A rule of thumb: if you don't know something, shut up. Your guesses on "market" is totally simplistic and completely wrong.

Each processor platform has its specialty, somewhat like a performance fingerprint, that it performs some things better than others. This is true even with the same ISA (i386 or x86-64). Until now, if you want a server with 4GB+ RAM and good performance, your only choice is Opteron. If you want a server that saves power under all conditions, that's Opteron. If you want a server that has good integer performance, that's Opteron. If you want a server that has higher IPC, that's Opteron. Things can go on and on. This (to consumers) is the AMD market.

Now again you completely left out the market view from system builder's perspective. If you've ever peeked into a Dell Xeon server, you know how custom-made it is. The port placement of the motherboard is different from that you can buy off the shelves. Same goes with HP or any other tier-1/2 vendor, and with AMD's servers, too. Dell hasn't been in AMD's market long enough to streamline the process of building those machines.

While Woodcrest and Conroe's release might mix some Intel machine into current AMD market, it's not there yet, probably not until end of this year. Even after Woodcrest's release, its performance metrics will still be different from Opterons, and each will be the choice of some special purpose.

7:30 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"I hope Intel doesn't screw up the PC market like it screwed up the NOR flash market."

FYI, Intel already screwed up the PC market. If it were not AMD and its Athlons and Opterons, people would not have wanted newer Pentium-4 machines which failed to scale up to 4Ghz, and Intel would not have released the Core 2. I remember back in 2002 people were already talking about PC market slowing down or even crashing. Intel's really doing a good job of screwing up its own business had AMD not been pushing it around.

7:35 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"Yeah, Intel owns 75% of the microsprocessor market because of its name and nothing else."

Actually, Intel owns 75% of the microprocessor market also because there are some idiots like you, someone who'd rather buy P-4 craps and insists AMD's market is "small." Nah... AMD's market is "smart," while anyone who says what you said probably has a brain that is "small."

My cousin used to like Intel a lot. She even insisted on buildling a $1000+ P4 last year when upgrading her aging P-II. Well, now she can't watch DVD while running p2p, because the f**king hyperthreading allow both interfere with each other and she'll have either dropped frames or slow downloads. My $600 x2 3800, on the other hand, performs both plus other things at the same time just fine. Yeah... Intel's great product really makes a difference.

7:46 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mad Mod, you read my entire post. You just got lazy and didn't want to respond to it point by point. You couldn't is why. Not because you chose not to. The proof will be in upcoming quarters. Intel will have at least an equal product and all indications are that it will have a lower cost, higher performing part soon as in next month. Intel will take a bad quarter to clear out inventory. Hell, it will still have more profit than AMD in a bad quarter as I have already demonstrated. It is always funny how how you AMD boys ignore the bottom line... $1.35 Billion vs $185 million. Profits talk, bullshit walks. The customers have spoken with their dollars. When AMD starts posting a profit that exceeds Intel's tax bill then you guys can start crowing. Until then keep your yaps shut!

Intel's Income tax expense: Q1'06 $517 million. AMDs profit Q1'06 $184.4 million. Priceless.

If that's the story between Intel and AMD when Intel has a supposedly inferior product can you just imagine how things are going to look when Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom ship in quantity? Do you know why Intel will have a bad Q2? Because everyone is WAITING TO BUY Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom.

8:29 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Intel will take a bad quarter to clear out inventory.

Does DELL going AMD on desktop mean something to you?

8:34 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, does AMD stock down 30% since the big Dell announcement mean anything to you?

9:09 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

"Do you know why Intel will have a bad Q2? Because everyone is WAITING TO BUY Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom."

I said it before, I'll say it again...

You can't fix stupid.

9:19 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Sharikou, does AMD stock down 30% since the big Dell announcement mean anything to you?

Uninformed individual investors always get screwed. You should search in this blog for Merill Lynch, BoA (they rate AMD at sell) and others and see what big houses are doing.

9:21 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AMD is going down, down and down.. http://www.google.com/finance?cid=327 Wow..lookit go downhill while Intel has more or less sustained itself...

Dell to use AMD in (mostly 2p and 4p) servers only (also on "customer demand"), those desktop thingies at the moment are just rumors.. Dell is definitely gonna get Conroes for their next generation rigs (next month!). All are prepared for this July launched..

Will this blog continue to exist after C-Day (Conroe-day) July 23rd? To be or not to be, that is the question...

9:28 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, tell us who's selling. Mom and pop hold AMD? 76% of AMD float is held by institutional investors. Might be that the rest of 24% is held by employees and fans of this blog. Are you calling them uninformed?

9:32 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...


Buyers and sellers

9:35 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharikou, your data was posted on May 16th and was good for the March quarter. I'm asking about the last month or so, since May 19th. That's the 30% drop. You know the saying: "buy the rumor, sell the news"

But you're right about analysts. Don't trust them, do your own analysis. Looking forward to your update for the June quarter.

9:46 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the word you guys are looking for is "sector", just kidding guys.

Mad Mod Mike...Coke or Pepsi, gotta go with coke...lol

10:07 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Golden nuggets from MMM: "I didn't read your whole post, as after 10 words, I knew the point (you're a f*cking moron)."

By the way Mike, if your avatar pic is at all representative of the real you. All I can say is; stay away from the ding-dongs, stop playing video games and re-modding your sorry AMD box and GET SOME EXERCISE!

Yes that was an ad hominem attack. Now go look up ad hominem you fat, doughy, f**k.

Sharikou, I know you'll publish this because you like to see a stir-up on your site. You just wish you could be Anand ... but you never will be.

10:25 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sharikou, does AMD stock down 30% since the big Dell announcement mean anything to you?"


Does INTC stock trading at multi-year lows mean anything to you?

10:38 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Entrophos said...

It seems to me that you've gotten the attention of some Intel employees that have nothing better to do than spout company propaganda here.

Keep up the good work Dr. Sharikou. If you're making Intel employees this upset, you must be hitting very close to the mark with your opinions.

11:09 PM, June 13, 2006  
Blogger Ajay S. said...

wtf is the problem with these intel fan boys? why do they even visit this blog if they cant digest what is being written?

"Do you know why Intel will have a bad Q2? Because everyone is WAITING TO BUY Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom."

exactly, there are enough morons who bought the P4 and Xeons to keep Intel profitable till now. 70% of the desktop and low + mid range server market users go by brand and are incapable of choosing a system on its technical and performance merits.

What a party Intel had with the "scrapped in three years" net burst architecture. If AMD had not come along with a strong product lineup, they could have continued this party for a few more years.

The only sensible products Intel has had for the past three years are it mobile products.

"Dell to use AMD in (mostly 2p and 4p) servers only (also on "customer demand"),"

Great, so a chip giant that created the x86 processor, has 1.35 billion$ profits, pays $517 million taxes, employs 1,00,000 people, could not come up with a processor architecture that scales up more than 2P, 3 years after a small competitor called AMD, 10x smaller than Intel, came up with one called Athlon64 / Opteron.

Hmm, may be Intel was busy designing a new architecture called "Itanium" from scratch because it tought i386 architecture could never do 64bit. Wow, who the f**k would have tought some idiots at "copycat" AMD would come up with one that could do both 32 bit and 64 bit at the same time without a performance penalty! Or maybe Intel was busy trying to push netburst to 10Ghz. THAT would have been a chip I would have wanted for my games. Hmm, I am still wondering why Intel dumped such a promising Netburst architecture altogether.......

Have you Intel fanboys ever heard of three companies called Ford, General Motors and Toyota?

Hope Sharikou and Mad Mod Mike can spend more time discussing genuine queries than fending off ramblings of Intel fan boys

Any idea on wether 4x4 chips will support dedicated memory lanes for each processor? Shared memeory lanes for upto 2P/4 cores comes with a performance penalty, but seems to shaves off about $100 from the motherboard prices

11:24 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"as its stock is valued at 17x price/book."

Do you mean P/E (earnings?)

From financial perspective generally the lower the P/E, the more investors have already "priced in" future revenue decline. Just as higher P/E ratio means investors expect earnings growth.

AMD has a P/E of 30, and at it's high point had something on the order of 80 which was nearing "dotcom" levels back in 2001. 30 is still on the high side for this industry meaning investors expect earnings to rise in the coming quarters, if it doesn't the stock price will continue to drop to a P/E ratio of about 20-25. This would put stock at ~#20/share unless earnings grow.

One other thing worth considering - while Dell may be losing some of it's pricing advantage on chips, I would suspect they have access to Intel's chip capacity earlier than others - this gives them some advantage in time to market over it's competitors, by switching over to AMD they may gain revenue but this may be somewhat offset by loss of early access to Intel capacity.

11:59 PM, June 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fastest CPU I had is P4-3.2GHz HT. It is fast if I stay idle and remain at around 75 deg Celsius.

When I do play gamesthe CPU just throttle, and hit 80~90 deg Celsius. In the end, my old 45 deg Celsius Sempron 2500 (socketA) are even faster.

Plus all those different/inconsistent Conroe benchmark result... Intel is really hard to trust.

1:22 AM, June 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The fastest CPU I had is P4-3.2GHz HT. It is fast if I stay idle and remain at around 75 deg Celsius."

Have you ever heard of Artic Silver?

A heatsink, and fan?

There is something really wrong with your temps/setup.

7:42 AM, June 14, 2006  
Blogger Mad Mod Mike said...

"Any idea on wether 4x4 chips will support dedicated memory lanes for each processor? Shared memeory lanes for upto 2P/4 cores comes with a performance penalty, but seems to shaves off about $100 from the motherboard prices"

4x4 has at least 2 channels of unregged DDR2-800 (standard) for each CPU. The CPU's are connected via ccHT and CPU0 uses 2 HT links: 1 for ccHT and 1 for the NB. The NB contains 16 lanes of PCI-E and the SB contains another 16 lanes for PCI-E to offer Dual or Quad SLI capable systems.

I would have liked to see CPU1 connecting to the SB for total DCA, but the more I think of it, the more I see it is unnecessary, but would have helped increase performance on high-end RAID arrays and Gaming due to the 2nd CPU being able to get the 2nd GPU into processing faster; than again, this would have required additional overhead.

8:56 AM, June 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't decide which is worse--your financial analysis or your technical analysis. Question: what does the price/book ratio have to do with the likelihood of a company going bankrupt? Answer: absolutely nothing. It may indicate a company like DELL is overvalued (and it likely is), but being overvalued doesn't mean bankruptcy is right around the corner. If that was the case then pretty much every technology company at some point would have gone bankrupt. Dell's growth is no doubt slowing, but the computer industry in general has lower growth. Dell is a company with $8.5 billion in the bank and only $500 million in debt, and it's still generating net income of a few billion dollars every quarter. Your dire predictions of Intel and Dell going bankrupt in some sort of Enron scandal, while certainly entertaining no doubt to the AMD faithful, have no basis in financial reality.

9:13 AM, June 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/printarticle.asp?Feed=AP&Date=20060613&ID=5794225

According to this source that DELL will sell AMD Desktop in September.

9:37 AM, June 14, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

Question: what does the price/book ratio have to do with the likelihood of a company going bankrupt? Answer: absolutely nothing.

Hint: study the case of Enron. (I analysed it elsewhere on this blog)

11:05 AM, June 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Have you ever heard of Artic Silver?

A heatsink, and fan?

There is something really wrong with your temps/setup."


My room temp is 33 deg Celsius. I don't overclock and, all the while I don't need 3rd party expensive thermal paste or whatever on all my own PC and my friends' that were built by me.

Surveying around my area, a P4 3.xGHz HT definitely goes around at that temperature, meanwhile AMD64 Venice 3x00 core are more or less on room temperature with the highest on 45 deg. Oh yeah, those Pentium users they use 3rd party fans and thermal paste in order to have it run happily just under 80 deg on full load... for AMD64, they use stock fans (except overclockers).

9:54 PM, June 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"while I don't need 3rd party expensive thermal paste"

WOW! $8 is expensive thermal paste, if thats expensive stay away from computers.

7:39 AM, June 15, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm.. My new Pentium D 805 is about 27C idle and less than 39C on full load, this is in normal room temperatures... Looking at its steppings, this new PD805 seems to be the 65nm veriety instead of 90nm? Intel still has (quiet) surprises up their sleeves...

4x4 is marketing BS. If you want 4x4 now, buy a dual Opteron serverboard with dual PCIe for SLI/Xfire... Its already available in the market.. Oh yes, Opterons only.. not A64s, FXs or X2s. BTW, ONLY OPTERONS have ccHT LINKS, and 3 of them.. A64, FXs and X2s only have ONE NON-ccHT LINK.

On that HardOCP "65nm".. did you see that board properly.. looks like a protoyping board. Where are the benchmarks? No hands on? Why isn't it running Windows or Linux? They were shown but NEVER officially announced... Where's the fabled Rev. G?

Oh yes... in that article, 4x4 looks destined for Optys only.. and no HTX for AM2.

1:53 AM, June 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey People (Shariq, Edward and the other "Anonymous"),
Is there an AMD market? Is market just a way to categorize?

Please understand that as a first time reader of this entire warlog (more than a weblog), I am convinced it has gone for far too long. If that is not cause enough to stop the war immediately and put your energies towards more productive issues, I have a little summary from the point of a third person arbiter:

Each of you is at least partially right: Generally speaking the market is for PCs, and servers and yada yada. However, loosely speaking and for (among others) the purpose of referring to the market shares, it is not wrong to speak of an AMD market (I personally feel a better word would be a segment) or a Mac segment etc.

Again, the other Anonymous is right in saying that the "AMD market" is not buying AMDs because their objective was to buy AMDs. The consumers of AMD make up a particular segment of the market which is actually a "High performance per watt" segment (or whatever the sales proposition is) and since the one manufacturer who dominates the space is AMD, for linguistic convenience, the same segment could be referred to as an AMD segment.

I do feel that Anonymous could have avoided some issues, if s/he had a better feel of the market trends, actual revenue figures and the market breakup of what kind of consumer is buying what.

SO WITHOUT MAKING IT REALLY LONG, GUYS, I once again request you to please ACT LIKE MATURE RATIONAL ADULTS, AND PATCH UP (and spare the visitors to this site a view of a dirty battle going on).

The real debate I thought should have been around whether the best move for Intel was to raise prices, and would that have cured for Intel what pure lack of capacity to fill a particularly high margin gap in the market would not. I am still curious to know your views and opinions. And I know precious little about the market segments of needs and competition by quality. So I might be wrong, but I think, given the market share that Intel has (and hence can make good money by concentrating on sheer volumes), a higher price may actually have backfired, and the home consumer might have jilted Intel to go with cheaper chips. AMD, already doing better, could have jumped in and gotten that share of the market as well.

Thoughts, comments? Please post the figures or links that you quote, so that we can all benefit in knowledge.

7:37 AM, June 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home